🔗 Share this article

This accusation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have deceived Britons, scaring them into accepting massive additional taxes which could be used for increased benefits. However exaggerated, this is not usual Westminster bickering; on this occasion, the consequences are more serious. Just last week, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a mess". Now, it is denounced as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

Such a serious charge requires clear answers, so let me provide my assessment. Has the chancellor tell lies? Based on the available information, apparently not. There were no whoppers. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we can all move along. The Chancellor did mislead the public regarding the factors informing her decisions. Was this all to channel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories assert? Certainly not, as the numbers demonstrate this.

A Standing Sustains Another Hit, But Facts Must Win Out

The Chancellor has sustained a further blow to her reputation, but, if facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is much more unusual than the headlines indicate, extending wider and further than the political futures of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, this is an account about what degree of influence the public get in the running of our own country. This should concern everyone.

Firstly, to the Core Details

After the OBR published last Friday a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she wrote the budget, the surprise was instant. Not merely has the OBR not acted this way before (an "rare action"), its numbers seemingly went against the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

Consider the government's most "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned this would barely be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary that it caused morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks before the real budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the main reason being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding that the UK had become less productive, investing more but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied recently, that is essentially what transpired during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her justification, because those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have chosen different options; she might have provided alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it's a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as a technocrat buffeted by forces outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, confronting the choices that I face."

She certainly make decisions, just not one Labour wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be paying an additional £26bn annually in tax – and the majority of this will not be funding better hospitals, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than going on services, over 50% of this extra cash will in fact give Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed fiscal rules. About 25% is allocated to covering the administration's U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been a bit of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have spent days barking about how Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking strivers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget as a relief for their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group are completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was primarily targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the financial markets.

The government can make a compelling argument in its defence. The margins from the OBR were deemed insufficient for comfort, especially considering lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate among G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries far greater debt. Combined with our measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue this budget enables the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see why those wearing Labour badges might not couch it this way next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market as a tool of discipline over her own party and the electorate. This is why Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing from this is any sense of strategic governance, of harnessing the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,